My wife and I have lived in Lake View since August 2005. When we moved here, she had just started a job at Children’s Hospital in Birmingham, and I was about to start graduate school at UA. We were fortunate to find a new house in a great location, with the best neighbors we could have asked for.
My wife left Children’s Hospital in the winter of 2008 to take a new job in Tuscaloosa, where I was already working for UA. After a year of commuting, we decided that we were tired of the drive, and we began looking around to see if there were any houses we liked in town.
In December 2009, we found a house that we both really liked, and we signed a contract to buy it—contingent on the sale of our house, of course. We listed our house with as low an asking price as possible, considering the market has been down—especially in our area. We waited patiently, but only a handful of people came to see it.
Last Tuesday, a couple from Birmingham came to see the house, and they took a second viewing on Friday. This weekend they made an offer, and we negotiated and reached an agreement. We signed a contract to sell our house today.
We will be leaving Lake View at the end of May and moving to Tuscaloosa. Unfortunately, this means that I will have to resign my seat on the Lake View town council. This was a tough decision to make, but ultimately it is the best decision for my family. I wish we could have done more to solve some of Lake View’s ongoing problems during my time on the council; I hope I will be able to continue to work to help the town in the future, even if it is in an unofficial capacity.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Democrats fear for their safety
In the wake of their passage of ObamaCare™, it seems that a number of congressmen have had threatening phone messages from constituents or vandalism at their offices (or symbolic gestures like the coffin left at Russ Carnahan’s office). Some Democrats now say they are afraid for their safety. In the meantime, our Dear Leader president sounds as arrogant as ever, mocking opponents of the bill for “acting as if (it) would lead to ‘Armageddon.’”
I think it is a good thing that these tyrants are afraid. It’s about damn time they were afraid. They gallivant around Washington and spend our money like there’s no tomorrow, all the while looking down their noses at we “little people” in “flyover country.” They are the political elites, the ruling class, and they have believed for too long that they are better than us—that they are above us somehow. They are drunk on power, and they think they can do whatever they want without consequence. They ought to respect the people who put them in their positions; perhaps a little fear will lead to that respect.
I’m not advocating bloodshed, but I hope the people continue to voice their displeasure in no uncertain terms. As Sarah Palin said, “Don’t retreat…RELOAD!” Either these tyrants will get the message and start actually listening to their constituents, or they will find themselves cast out of the Capitol by the people’s pitchforks and torches (or perhaps rifles and shotguns).
I think it is a good thing that these tyrants are afraid. It’s about damn time they were afraid. They gallivant around Washington and spend our money like there’s no tomorrow, all the while looking down their noses at we “little people” in “flyover country.” They are the political elites, the ruling class, and they have believed for too long that they are better than us—that they are above us somehow. They are drunk on power, and they think they can do whatever they want without consequence. They ought to respect the people who put them in their positions; perhaps a little fear will lead to that respect.
I’m not advocating bloodshed, but I hope the people continue to voice their displeasure in no uncertain terms. As Sarah Palin said, “Don’t retreat…RELOAD!” Either these tyrants will get the message and start actually listening to their constituents, or they will find themselves cast out of the Capitol by the people’s pitchforks and torches (or perhaps rifles and shotguns).
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
On the current unpleasantness in D.C.
A few months ago, I said that the health care “reform” bill, if passed, could be the catalyst that leads to real change in our system of government. (What we have now is a perversion of what our founding fathers created; it needs radical change—indeed, it may need to be destroyed and reborn from the ashes.)
Little did we know the lengths to which our “representatives” in Washington would go in order to pass this terrible piece of legislation. What is happening on Capitol Hill right now is tyranny, plain and simple. Our Declaration of Independence stated:
There was a time when men loved liberty enough that they would have given these tyrants the fate they deserve: their heads would be on pikes outside the Capitol, or they would hang from the trees on the National Mall.
Instead, the bill will likely pass. And what will happen in 2010 and 2012? Will the Republicans regain power and repeal the act? Not likely; if their candidates run on the premise of repealing the health care act, Democrats will do the same thing they’ve done for years with Social Security: use scare tactics. They’ll wail “Republicans are going to take away your health care!” Entitlements are nearly impossible to remove once they are enacted, and this is the biggest and most expensive entitlement of all.
Perhaps passage of the bill will act as the catalyst I referred to previously. Thirty-seven states have pending legislation that will require their attorneys general to sue the federal government if it requires the states’ residents to purchase health insurance, and Iowa just signed this into law.
But will any states go further? Many states have passed “sovereignty resolutions” over the past year, asserting their autonomy under the 10th Amendment. Will any threaten to secede? If a state does secede, will the federal government take any action?
If there were a legitimate threat of secession by any state, it might be enough for the federal government to begin reining itself in. Is there anything else, short of outright rebellion, that can stop the growth of this monster?
Little did we know the lengths to which our “representatives” in Washington would go in order to pass this terrible piece of legislation. What is happening on Capitol Hill right now is tyranny, plain and simple. Our Declaration of Independence stated:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.I submit that the actions of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Louise Slaughter, and the rest of them are worse than anything that George III did to the Colonies. Certainly we the people have petitioned for redress repeatedly over the last several months, but our petitions have been ignored or answered with outright arrogance and contempt. Now these despots are changing their own rules in the middle of the game and completely ignoring the Constitution: they plan to “deem the Senate bill passed” without holding an up-or-down vote on it. And for what? Do they really think we are that stupid?
There was a time when men loved liberty enough that they would have given these tyrants the fate they deserve: their heads would be on pikes outside the Capitol, or they would hang from the trees on the National Mall.
Instead, the bill will likely pass. And what will happen in 2010 and 2012? Will the Republicans regain power and repeal the act? Not likely; if their candidates run on the premise of repealing the health care act, Democrats will do the same thing they’ve done for years with Social Security: use scare tactics. They’ll wail “Republicans are going to take away your health care!” Entitlements are nearly impossible to remove once they are enacted, and this is the biggest and most expensive entitlement of all.
Perhaps passage of the bill will act as the catalyst I referred to previously. Thirty-seven states have pending legislation that will require their attorneys general to sue the federal government if it requires the states’ residents to purchase health insurance, and Iowa just signed this into law.
But will any states go further? Many states have passed “sovereignty resolutions” over the past year, asserting their autonomy under the 10th Amendment. Will any threaten to secede? If a state does secede, will the federal government take any action?
If there were a legitimate threat of secession by any state, it might be enough for the federal government to begin reining itself in. Is there anything else, short of outright rebellion, that can stop the growth of this monster?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Only the good die young
A friend of mine, Matt Miller, passed away today. He was only 25, but he touched the lives of many people.
The "About Me" section on Matt's Facebook page said:
I for one am sure that he succeeded. The world is worse off without him.
Godspeed, Matt.
The "About Me" section on Matt's Facebook page said:
I strive to live life different. When I die I want people to say that I had a positive impact on the lives of the people that I came into contact with because I was willing to do things, say things, and give things other only dreamed about, and I want to have have fun while I do it.
I for one am sure that he succeeded. The world is worse off without him.
Godspeed, Matt.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
3. Possible solutions to our big-government problem; their viability; and How the health care debate factors in.
A few weeks ago I mentioned what I believe are the three basic options we have for saving our Republic. Now I will expound on them.
I. Overthrowing the federal government via armed revolution.
There are numerous problems with this approach, not the least of which is that it essentially constitutes treason. Even conspiring to overthrow the federal government is treasonous, so orchestrating such a rebellion would be very difficult. Some would point to the overwhelming military might of the United States Army as another obstacle; however, I personally believe that if a group of patriots were able to plan and execute such a revolution, they would actually meet with little resistance, as I think most of our military personnel would refuse to comply with orders to fire on American citizens.
Of course, victory (should such a plan be carried out) would mean that the tyrants who presently rule us would be removed from power. But what then? If a coup d’état were successful, what would we do after seizing power? The blueprints are there—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—so there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. We’d just need to actually follow them this time—which would require electing a completely new slate of representatives to serve in government. Fortunately, there is a way to achieve this without the violence of revolution…
II. Elimination of ALL current elected officials from office
We could get back on the path our founding fathers intended by voting out every last elected official at our first opportunity. We would also need to eliminate the politicians’ primary motive—reelection—by imposing term limits via a Constitutional amendment. As I mentioned recently, the halls of government are filled with career politicians, many of whom have served for decades. Their first priority is to get reelected, and the surest way to do this is to increase the number of people who are dependent on government—and this is exactly what they have done. I believe we should vote out every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation, in the next election—and replace them with candidates who have not previously served. By limiting them to only two terms, we can remove their incentive to increase the size and scope of government, since they know they will have to eventually return to private life—and be governed by the laws and policies they put in place.
Unfortunately, I do not believe our electorate has either the will or the intelligence to accomplish this. Apathy is rampant, and so many people who do vote are terribly uninformed. Voters also lack the resolve to vote out their own representatives—they may agree with these calls for action, but when they go to the ballot box, they say to themselves, “534 of these people need to go—but mine has been doing a good job.” Simply electing a handful of new representatives scattered across the nation will not accomplish anything—they ALL need to go. Since I don’t believe our voter base is competent enough to accomplish this, I present the third option…
III. Dissolution of the Union, and reorganization into regional governments.
I believe this is the most feasible solution for the future of these United States. It is more likely to occur than a complete turnover of elected officials, and it can be accomplished without violence. Were one state to secede from the Union, others would surely follow—and I do not believe that the federal government would attempt to preserve the Union by force as it did in 1861.
Why did the original 13 states decide to unite under a central federal government? As expressed in the Constitution, it was to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…” Certainly three or four regional governments could accomplish this better than the single behemoth we have today. The fifty States are spread across the continent, and their interests vary a great deal. Regional alliances of States could accomplish the same goals more efficiently than the current union.
I believe the current “health care reform” proposal in Congress may play an important role in determining the direction our Union goes. It provides a galvanizing issue for those, like myself, who would like to put an end to the continuous growth of government and return to the limited government intended by our founding fathers. Such a rallying point is essential if we are to convince the citizenry to take action. If this proposal passes in its worst form, it may indeed spur secession. However, if a weakened or significantly altered proposal (perhaps one without a “public option”) is signed into law, then not only will it work further damage to our economy and strike another blow against liberty, but it will also pave the way for future passage of the worst version. Unfortunately, those future changes would have a much smaller chance of galvanizing resistance the way the current version has over the last few months.
I. Overthrowing the federal government via armed revolution.
There are numerous problems with this approach, not the least of which is that it essentially constitutes treason. Even conspiring to overthrow the federal government is treasonous, so orchestrating such a rebellion would be very difficult. Some would point to the overwhelming military might of the United States Army as another obstacle; however, I personally believe that if a group of patriots were able to plan and execute such a revolution, they would actually meet with little resistance, as I think most of our military personnel would refuse to comply with orders to fire on American citizens.
Of course, victory (should such a plan be carried out) would mean that the tyrants who presently rule us would be removed from power. But what then? If a coup d’état were successful, what would we do after seizing power? The blueprints are there—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—so there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. We’d just need to actually follow them this time—which would require electing a completely new slate of representatives to serve in government. Fortunately, there is a way to achieve this without the violence of revolution…
II. Elimination of ALL current elected officials from office
We could get back on the path our founding fathers intended by voting out every last elected official at our first opportunity. We would also need to eliminate the politicians’ primary motive—reelection—by imposing term limits via a Constitutional amendment. As I mentioned recently, the halls of government are filled with career politicians, many of whom have served for decades. Their first priority is to get reelected, and the surest way to do this is to increase the number of people who are dependent on government—and this is exactly what they have done. I believe we should vote out every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation, in the next election—and replace them with candidates who have not previously served. By limiting them to only two terms, we can remove their incentive to increase the size and scope of government, since they know they will have to eventually return to private life—and be governed by the laws and policies they put in place.
Unfortunately, I do not believe our electorate has either the will or the intelligence to accomplish this. Apathy is rampant, and so many people who do vote are terribly uninformed. Voters also lack the resolve to vote out their own representatives—they may agree with these calls for action, but when they go to the ballot box, they say to themselves, “534 of these people need to go—but mine has been doing a good job.” Simply electing a handful of new representatives scattered across the nation will not accomplish anything—they ALL need to go. Since I don’t believe our voter base is competent enough to accomplish this, I present the third option…
III. Dissolution of the Union, and reorganization into regional governments.
I believe this is the most feasible solution for the future of these United States. It is more likely to occur than a complete turnover of elected officials, and it can be accomplished without violence. Were one state to secede from the Union, others would surely follow—and I do not believe that the federal government would attempt to preserve the Union by force as it did in 1861.
Why did the original 13 states decide to unite under a central federal government? As expressed in the Constitution, it was to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…” Certainly three or four regional governments could accomplish this better than the single behemoth we have today. The fifty States are spread across the continent, and their interests vary a great deal. Regional alliances of States could accomplish the same goals more efficiently than the current union.
I believe the current “health care reform” proposal in Congress may play an important role in determining the direction our Union goes. It provides a galvanizing issue for those, like myself, who would like to put an end to the continuous growth of government and return to the limited government intended by our founding fathers. Such a rallying point is essential if we are to convince the citizenry to take action. If this proposal passes in its worst form, it may indeed spur secession. However, if a weakened or significantly altered proposal (perhaps one without a “public option”) is signed into law, then not only will it work further damage to our economy and strike another blow against liberty, but it will also pave the way for future passage of the worst version. Unfortunately, those future changes would have a much smaller chance of galvanizing resistance the way the current version has over the last few months.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
